[BEDOS DE CELLES – DUHAMEL DU MONCEAU – JARS – REAUMUR, etc.] DESCRIPTION DES ARTS ET METIERS. Fait ou approuvés par MM. de l’Académie des Sciences.

Brunet, II, 618; En français dans le texte, 155.

First edition of the first encyclopaedic description of the Arts and Crafts of France. It precedes and prefigures Diderot’s great Encyclopédie, and is infinitely rarer than the latter.

Initiated at the end of the 17th century by four academicians – Abbé Bignon, des Billettes, Père Truchet and Jaugeon – and directed by Réaumur from 1709 until his death in 1757, the Description des arts et métiers was not published until 1761 by Duhamel du Monceau. It comprises 80 titles in all, 18 of which are signed by Duhamel himself, the others by Réaumur, La Lande, Courtivon, Fourcroy, l’abbé Nollet, Bedos de Celles, etc. These volumes, published under the title Art of a specific handcraft (art du tonnelier, du facteur d’orgues ou du tanneur, etc.), were sold separately, making it almost impossible to find a complete collection of all the titles.

In accordance with the wishes of the first four promoters of the Description des arts et métiers, the plates had to be clear and educational. They were so successful that the editors of Diderot’s Encyclopédie copied them: between the two publications ‘the relationship between the plates, both in terms of content and presentation [was] such that it [was] at the root of the so-called “plagiarism” affair’.

The latter opposed the Royal Academy of Sciences to the Booksellers-Associates, who [were] obliged to have new plates engraved, different from those of the Description’ (Tous les savoirs du monde, BnF, 1996, p. 384).

Detailed description :

The Descriptions des Arts et Métiers, published by the Académie Royale des Sciences of Paris in 1761-1788 present a scientific picture of the industrial processes employed in France during the 18th century. It aimed at being encyclopedic though not in form. Be- cause no similar survey was carried out in any other country at so early a date, and because the Descriptions were published at the eve of the “industrial revolution”, therefore portraying the maxima of skills attained at the end of one given social period, the age of the handicraftsman, the Descriptions des Arts et Métiers are widely considered as a most precious testimony.

However, if these descriptions of arts and handi crafts clearly created a great influence in Western Europe at the time, they were also undeservedly overshadowed by Diderot’s Enclyclopédie (1751-1780), the events of the French Revolution, and the later development of new industrial techniques during the industrial revolution.

This series is equally remarkable as it is an outstanding example of the high plane attained by the French printers, engravers and publisher in those days. 

The nature of the descriptions 

A monograph usually consists of, firstly, a section giving de- tails of the various raw materials employed, secondly, a de- scription of the equipment used, and thirdly, a section in which all the steps which the workmen must carry out in order to make the product in question are described.

Each description aims at being realistic and practical: the last section of a monograph is illustrated with engravings portraying the tools, the workshops and the craftsmen carrying out the various operations. Alongside appendices listing the vocabulary of the trade in question, one finds references to the possible markets for finished commodities and histories of the particular arts.

The set, which covers a large part of French industrial activity of the period, reflects the economic importance of the several crafts in the number of pages devoted to their de- scription. Coalmining, organ-making and metalworking are thus studied extensively together with carpentry (1.300 pages and 400 plates). Conversely, less space is devoted to the making of hats, the manufacture of soap, the production of candles and the art of the barber. Only very rarely do certain studies exceed the general scope of the series – the description of arts and handicrafts: one brief monograph introduces a new variety of microscope, another discusses a method for scaling mathematical and astronomical instruments, and the General treatise on fishes by Duhamel du Monceau (one of the collection’s most famous contributors), which, although an integral part of the set, was often sold separately, contains a great deal of zoology as well as a description of fishing techniques. However, the Academy of Sciences had undoubtedly attained its aim by 1788: the total publication comprises almost 13.500 pages of text and 1.887 plates.

The participants in the Descriptions include a great number of distinguished figures of 18th century France. Alongside the two most active and influential contributors, MM. de Réaumur and Duhamel du Monceau, one finds Gabriel Jars, known for his Voyages métallurgiques, the distinguished astronomers, Joseph Jérôme Le Français de La Lande and Pierre- Charles Le Monnier, the mathematician Charles Romme, the chemist Paul-Jacques Malouin, one of the original group of “Encyclopédistes”, the physician Jean-François-Clément Morand, and Roland de la Platière, a Home Secretary in the early days of the French Revolution and husband of the cel- ebrated Madame Roland. The Academy also chose to call on the services of foreign contributors, the Swedes Fredrik Henrik Chapman and Emmanuel Swedenborg: Chapman’s Treatise on ship-building, published in Stockholm in 1775, was translated and published in full, together with extracts of Swedenborg’s Treatise on iron.

Origin of the series :

The first step towards establishing the Descriptions des Arts et Metiers was taken in 1666 by the French economic statesman Jean-Baptiste Colbert when he set up the Académie Royale des Sciences, thereby giving formal organization to the meetings that scholars such as Descartes, Gassendi, Blaise and Etienne Pascal held in private houses during the 17th century.

The Academy, chiefly composed of mathematicians and physicists in those days, paid little attention to applied sciences despite the suggestion, which was not pursued, by one of its members, the astronomer Auzout, to create a com- mission designed to inspect French workmen. Similarly, Colbert suggested in 1675 that the Academy, in keeping with the King’s wishes, work upon a treatise on mechanics in which theory and practice should be applied with clarity”. Colbert’s intervention brought no significant results, and his successor, Louvois, was nomore successful. The reason for this may lie in the decline of the Academy in the last decades of the century (the laboratory was abandoned, members failed to attend meetings) or the revocation of the Edict of Nantes which is responsible for the flight of two of the institution’s most prominent members, Huyghens and Romme.

The revival of the Academy, and that of the project of de scribing French handicrafts, was brought about by the potent Abbé Bignon, thanks to whom a constitution, promulgated by the King, was elaborated. The institution was also awarded larger financial support.

To some extent, the charter of the Academy carried forward the notion that had earlier been expressed by Colbert: among the pensionnaires, twenty in all, at least three were to be “mécaniciens”, and among the associates, two were to be men “appliquez aux mécaniques”. The academicians were ere urged to conduct researches which might be of use in the area of handicrafts and asked to examine all the machines for which patents were sought from the King: they were to certify if these machines were useful and the inventors of approved devices were to leave models with the Academy.

The new turn of Academy interest was evident almost im mediately: Jaugeon and des Billettes, and later, M. de Réaumur, published studies on such diversified subjects as the making of pins, of artificial pearls or iron-mines.

M. de Réaumur, the first real editor or entrepreneur of the Descriptions des Arts et Metiers who was in charge of the whole program as early as 1706, is one of the three figures mainly associated with the series. The first is the Abbé Bignon who sponsored and outlined the plan at the end of the 17th cen- tury, and the second is Réaumur, his protégé.

Réaumur was born in 1683 and studied with the Jesuits in Poitiers already displaying an inclination to mathematics and physics and moved to Paris at the age of 20. Five years later, he was elected a member of the Academy and at once started working on a series of memoirs. He is remembered for his great influence in the fields of applied science and natural sciences. His researches resulted in the establishment of new manufactures and the revival of neglected industries. In the area of applied science, his great contribution was his L’Art de convertir le fer forgé en acier et l’art d’adoucir le fer fondu.

Réaumur’s contributions to the Descriptions des Arts et Metiers appear modest compared to his publications: his task seems indeed to have been that of assembling materials and preparing the ground, a task that he accomplished zealously if we are to believe the “avertissement général of the first volume (published in 1761) of the series which pays tribute to him. Similarly, at the beginning of individual volumes of the series. authors frequently acknowledge their debt to Réaumur. His death in 1757 made a new start necessary.

The second step: Duhamel du Monceau 

At Réaumur’s death, the risk of seeing the accumulated material of the Descriptions rendered unusable by the publication of the first volumes of Diderot and d’Alembert’s Encyclopédie, ou Dictionnaire raisonné des Sciences, des Arts et des Métiers prompted the academicians to resume their work at a greater pace. Therefore, on July 15th 1757, the papers found at Réaumur’s home were distributed amongst 20 members of the Academy charged with deciding which were immediately suitable for publication, completing material when the art in question had meanwhile been improved, and undertaking new research.

No director was officially designated yet Henri Duhamel du Monceau appears to have been the principal driving force considering that he was probably the author of the first unit of the sequence, the Art du charbonnier, published in 1761. He also probably wrote the Avertissement Général which both serves as preface to the volume and details the future aims to be pursued by the Academy. He is thought to be the author of the largest quantity of individual studies, around twenty, ranging from the Art du charbonnier to the Traité général des pesches whose final part appeared the year of his death.

Contrary to Réaumur, Duhamel du Monceau never had the interest in mathematics and pure science of his illustrious predecessor. He was more practical: nearly all 60 of the papers he submitted to the Academy explore the field of applied chemistry, botany or mechanics. These papers range from a memoir on salt (1737) to another on the iron forges of Brittany (1780).

For Duhamel du Monceau’s scientific interests were broad: on the subject of handicrafts, he studied candle-making, the refining of sugar, the art of the locksmith, and, while he is often praised for his treatise on fishes, he also is more likely to be remembered for his studies in the field of agriculture and the allied field of forestry. His Practical treatise on bus- bandry and his Elements of agriculture were translated in Ger- man. English and Spanish. In fact, Duhamel du Monceau is still credited today with having contributed greatly to eighteen century agricultural improvement: T. H. Marshall, in an article published in the Economic history review (1929-30) entitled “Jethro Tull’s New Husbandry praises the author of the Traité de la culture des terres suivant les principes de M. Tull: “This title was generous, for the work was mainly original… Duhamel did not swallow Tull whole, much he rejected and was wise enough to say so, with emphasis”.

Condorcet, in the eulogy he composed upon Duhamel du Monceau’s death in 1782, described the change of purpose among men of genius which directed sciences more particularly to public service and declared that none other than Duhamel du Monceau had contributed to that change.

The Descriptions themselves :

The courage of the Academy in embracing the task of organising the Descriptions, and the novelty of the work itself, is nowhere to be discussed. The only previous publications that resembled the series were mere picture books such as Schopper’s Panoplia, published in Frankfurt in 1568. Similarly, in England, there was almost nothing on technical processes of production in John Harris’s Lexicon Technicum (1704-1710). The Royal Society of Londor’s project in the late 1760’s of publishing “histories” (meaning descriptions) of industrial processes was short-lived and remained fruitless: the English productions were the result of individual inquiries or research, not that of organized group action as was the case for the French, and moreover covered far less ground than the Descriptions.

The work of the Academy, based on the practices observed in actual production, was directed solely at the public good and especially that of the practitioners of arts and handicrafts. The scientists hoped they could contribute to the solution of technical difficulties, which had blocked the progress of certain industries, and be helpful in transmitting improvements from one branch of manufacturing to another. The contributions of mere practitioners of various arts and handicrafts were thus summoned by the Academy in order to write the monographs. Indicative of this situation is the fact that 6 authors of individual monographs in the series have not been clearly identified to this day (they are referred to as “M. Dudin” or “M. Paulet” or described, in their several volumes, as the “director of an indigo manufactory for many years” or a “master carpenter”.)

It was indeed essential to collect accurate descriptions concerning the handicraft practices then in vogue, considering the obscurity surrounding arts and handicrafts at that time. As M. de La Lande explains in the Academy’s Avertissement Général published at the beginning of the series’ appearance, this obscurity was largely the doing of the workmen them- selves, who, anxious to keep the secrets of their arts, hindered the progress of their industry. The academicians would therefore seek to dispel this secretive obscurity and increase the communication between science and industry in order to break through many old traditional but wholly unscientific industrial practices.

The worth of the series 

200 years after their publication, the quantity of details contained in the monographs of the Academy is undoubtedly dumbfounding. In this respect, the Descriptions have a considerable advantage over their nearest competitor, Diderot’s Encyclopédie which bore descriptions and plates illustrating arts and handicrafts: the next of the latter is often far more restricted than that of the Descriptions (11 pages against 150 or 1 page against 68 for particular trades). It is equally interesting to note the number of references to the Descriptions made by M. Panckoucke when printing material for the Encyclopédie: when he did not quote directly from the Academy’s monographs, he informed the reader by printing a statement such as: “we owe to M. le Comte de Milly an excellent description of the art of making porcelain; it is from this scholar that we shall borrow all that we are going to say on this art”. However, the plates of the Supplément give an example of the most flagrant – yet unacknowledged – borrowing.

The editors of the Encyclopédie also clearly recognized the worth of the academicians whom they often invited to collaborate with them: this was the case for Paul-Jacques Malouin and Pierre-Charles Le Monnier for instance.

Furthermore, the high quality of the Descriptions is suggested by the importance of the translations and reprints of separate monographs: the item of greatest endurance in this respect has to be Bedos de Celles’s L’art du facteur  d’orgues whose importance was realized in foreign countries almost immediately. The first foreign publication prompted by Bedos de Celles’s work was Kunst des Orgelbaues, theoretisch und praktisch beschrieben by Johann Samuel Halle, professor of history in the Royal Prussian Corps des Cadets de Berlin, which appeared in 1779. It is also interesting to note that, in addition to foreign publications, L’art du facteur d’orgues was reprinted in France in 1849 and 1903 thanks to the Librairie Encyclopédique de Roret who put out Marie-Pierre Hamel’s Nouveau manuel complet du facteur d’orgues, contenant l’orgue de Dom Bedos et tous les progress et perfectionnements de la facture jusqu’à ce jour etc… In the preface to the book, the author writes: “of all the works written on organ making, that of Dom Bedos holds without contradiction the first place”. Furthermore, because of the work’s clarity and rareness “which is no longer to be bad in the trade”, Hamel decided not to revise it and to reproduce it “almost literally”.

Finally, the Descriptions were to influence the publication of a considerable amount of books presenting the art of producing one thing or another. George Gregory’s extensive Dictionary of arts and sciences was printed in both England and the United States, in 1806 and 1815-16, respectively. The Germans seemed however to be the most enthusiastic; the Neuer Schauplatz der Künste und Handwerke running to 289 volumes, was published between 1817 and 1869. In this books, the Germans attempted to achieve for this period of the nineteenth century what the French had envisaged a century before and had begun to publish a half century earlier.

The end of the endevour 

The effort to describe the arts and handicrafts of eighteen century France lost its impetus within the Academy by the late 1770’s. Only five new titles were printed between 1780 and 1788, the date of the last official number of the Descriptions.

It is thought that the slackening of the Academy’s pace was due, firstly, to the fact that the academicians might have lost courage on realizing that the elegant printing of their publications rendered them too expensive for a wide sale, secondly, to the death, in 1782, of the most productive academician, Duhamel du Monceau, and thirdly, to the troubled times that preceded the Revolution. In fact, the Academy was suppressed in 1793, along with all the French academies. The members of the Institut National des Sciences et des Arts; which was set up in its place in 1795, thought at one time of reviving the project of describing the arts and handicrafts, but nothing became of this.

The volumes of the Descriptions des Arts et Métiers nevertheless remain a monument to the gentlemen of the Académie Royale des Sciences and to an age in France when arts and skills were well regarded. These volumes also remain a source of information to the student of eighteen-century French industry and the background of current manufacturing techniques be they in France or in other countries. Nowhere else are we to find descriptions of technical processes and handicrafts in such magnitude combined with items of more specialized character, such as notes on the commerce of that period in particular commodities or definitions of terms used in the several French trades of the day.